Nick Falbo is a Portland-based video game designer who is currently pursuing a degree in urban planning from Portland State University. Falbo is also a friend of Spencer Boomhower, whom you might recall as the artist/activist behind an excellent animated explanation of the Idaho Stop Law we first shared back in April.

The result was three short animated and fully-narrated video presentations. One is an introduction to the CRC project, the other is an explanation of the concept of “induced demand” and the other is an exploration of some of the alternatives to a 12-lane bridge that could be pursued.

NOTE: At BikePortland, we love your comments. We love them so much that we devote many hours every week to read them and make sure they are productive, inclusive, and supportive (heck, sometimes we even fix your typos!). That doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone. It means you must do it with tact and respect. This is our business and we do not tolerate mean commenters who add nothing of value to the discussion.

Unfortunately, we are not robots and we don't always catch everything. You can help by notifying us if you see inappropriate comments. Thanks! — Jonathan and Michael

The BTA should really hire Nick and Spencer as consultants any time they need an infographic (in video form) for PR and lobbying efforts. Excellent job, Nick, in getting the point across in the most compelling, succinct and clear ways possible.

or follow the links to the in-browser tour that makes use of Google Earth’s plugin. The videos show the presentation just fine, but if you enjoy exploring around Google Earth, you’ll enjoy the interactive tour.

Also worth pointing out that Nick and I have been working with our mutual friend Will Heiberg, who is another game artist, and a trails advocate, and the mad genius designer of the portable skills park everyone has been going nuts over at Sunday Parkways:

Nick – Good work making initially complex planning issues more accessible to a lay audience.

I would suggest you consider adding an alternative step to address the bridge congestion and traffic safety issues on Hayden Island: – close and relocate Hayden Island ramps south to Marine Drive (this reportedly makes Marine Drive function worse…but I-5 has a higher function); – close Vancouver’s Sixth Street on and off ramp (except perhaps for transit) – move SR-14 on ramp to the old Sixth Street ramp location – add a narrow arterial bridge between Bridgeton and Hayden Island

…these are not new ideas…but may have been discarded too early given the larger regional focus of the original project’s objective

Excellent! May I suggest that when speak of alternatives, we make them as physically attractive as possible. Make the MAX/Ped bridge lively, with people, plants, give it simple elegant footings, and empaphasize the impact it will have at touchdown. We have to make people IMAGINE what it would be like to walk and ride over the river. Imagine the experience of taking the MAX from downtown to downtown. Really introducing people to the concept, making them believe in it, put them there. Right now, the only thing most people know is being trapped in a car for hours a day during rush hour.

I’d like to see the current decision-makers offer a point-by-point refutation of the alternatives. They are much more appealing not only because they would cost less, but because their simplicity would lead to a much quicker improvement of the congestion problem than the time needed to build $4B worth of bridge.

Care to elaborate? I’m curious what you think is sophomoric about that assumption. My understanding is that the existing bridges are at the very least in better shape than certain other bridges in the region. What makes the current CRC bridges not savable in your opinion?